Man Charged In 'Virtual Porn' Case

Looks like this guy has actually committed a crime if the pictures can be defined as simulated sexual activity.

Edit: I change my verdict as per the comment below mine. The article says the guy was doing it for his own benefit, and I don't think the law he is being charged with applies subject to the knowledge we've been given in the news article.



www.tennessee.gov...

[edit on 27-6-2009 by theyreadmymind]

[edit on 27-6-2009 by theyreadmymind]

Did he possess it with the intent to promote, sell, distribute, transport, purchase, or exchange?

Good point. That is a requirement too. I got it into my head from somebody's comment that this guy posted the pictures on the internet, but the article doesn't say that.

reply to post by MischeviousElf

---

Wow! Lucky day! Not just one straw man, but two! In the same post!

A) You can't tell the difference between SOLICITED sexual fantasies involving CONSENTING ADULTS and UNSOLICITED sexual fantasies involving MINORS? Really? This boggles your mind?

B) Nobody outside of a Dickens novel would argue in favor of child labor. What's your point, or are you just going to go on an emotional tirade about SUVs and Wal-Mart again?

The notion that this man will be investigated and get a chance to face his accusers in open court seems to upset you.

Interesting.

So you won't be helping this guy keep unactive?

Its not a big deal since its not a child connected to you? Sit at your computer and imagine a pervert with a pick of your daughter, son, niece or nephew. Imagine what he is imagining while he is staring at it.

Now tell me he isn't a danger and doesn't deserve to have the crap beaten out of him everyday for a few years. In between the beatings he can attend group.

This is to everyone-

Everyone who says no crime was commited makes me sick. I hope to God you do not reproduce, because you do not have the compassion for children that is required to raise them.

It's not about emotion, it's about interpreting the law. The law states he must be distributing or purchasing the content, therefore I don't see how any crime has been committed.

I can see how you'd be upset though.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by theyreadmymind]

reply to post by theyreadmymind

---

My last post was my last on this thread.

I said what I wanted to say and I stand by it.

Pedophilia isn't the only disgusting disorder featured in this case. In fact, it's not even the most disgusting disorder featured in this case.

This disorder was created by the justice system and media and currently infects the minds and influences the opinions of billions of politically correct people across the world, including many who have posted in this thread.

That disorder is child worship.

People, in a desperate attempt to be politically correct and morally upstanding in the eye's of the public, conjure up fake outrage and tears when a child is involved in anything they deem inappropriate. That is what has led to many innocent people - including this man - being jailed, labeled a sex offender, and never again having the opportunity to lead a normal life if they make it out of prison alive.

Essentially what this man did was look at faces of children. So I take it we aren't allowed to look at the faces of children anymore? Forget taking pictures or - dare I say it - call a child "cute". Such vile behavior mustn't be tolerated!!!

As others have said, this is nothing but a thought crime. I'm sure I'm in the minority with what I am about to say, but I think what people do in the privacy of their homes and believe in the privacy of their own thoughts, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another person, is their own business. That includes viewing or being aroused by child pornography.

Until these people actually commit a real crime - such as rape, molestation, or abuse - leave them alone. Suppressing their desires - no matter how sick the desires are - only drives them to venture out and commit real crimes. As twisted as it may sound to your indoctrinated mind, allowing a pedophile to view child pornography does more to save a child than it does to harm one.

This man should be set free. No jail time, no surveillance, no psychologists. He did nothing wrong. His thoughts and pleasures may be a bit "off" by society's standards, but it certainly is not a crime to be different, no matter how extreme that difference is.

You are probably right. But if I had a daughter, I wouldn't saturate the Internet with her pictures, nor would I allow her to. Anyone who deserves to see or have pictures of my children will receive them directly from me in a secure way.

This technique for protecting your children is something called "being a parent". It's an ancient practice that was performed many generations ago when laziness and convenience of Big Brother weren't the accepted norm. Unfortunately it seems to have been abandoned by the majority of the human population.

It's sad that we have resorted to throwing people in prison for being different. So much for freedom of thought and individuality, right? If only people could accept the fact that everyone doesn't have to be the same, some actual progress in society could be made.

Cutting and pasting children's heads onto naked females, in the privacy of his own home, should be ok. As for people who say would I like him to have my daughter's head on the female - big deal. If I take my daughter out in public and he gets a photo of her, then how I am supposed to know what he does with it in private? Big deal to me if he wants to use it as part of his private sex-collage. My daughter was never hurt by it and would never have know her face was being used.

However, the problem with child-porn is that real kids were really hurt and abused to make those pictures. I don't see how it is in good taste to possess those images. People may argue that in his own privacy, he's not doing anything wrong, but if he somehow paid for a service to provide those pictures, then he's directly supporting the abuse of children.

I've got no problems with any type of artisitic license, if they want to draw children in compromising poses - whatever. No one suffers. But real children suffered in real porno pictures. It's sick.


This opinion walks a fine-line. I guess what you're saying is that if they can view existing images, then that's ok. But then what's stopping the suppliers making more images available?

People who fantasise about sex with children have a screwy moral compass. Personally, I think that MILFs are untapped potential, I don't see why men want to chase little boys and girls. If there was an innocent way to satisfy them, like art, or in this article, cut/paste, then there's no victim or crime. If he started trying to buy real child-porn, then that's where I draw the line.

Sadly, there will always be a market for child-porn. It won't be stamped out, ever. While there's enough judges, lawyers and police officers who indulge in it, I wouldn't expect any real effort to try and break the crime-gangs who know they are untouchable peddling their kiddy-porn.

Actually no offence by this, but your way of thinking almost makes me more worried than the pedos way of thinking.

I would be more fine with the father getting to beat him up once..
If she was my daughter I would have the urge to have my way with him.

But beating the crap out of him every day for a few years? Is this your solution? Violence? So your solution is to go much lower than him, to such a sick level of torture?

Not let's get this into perspective.

1: A guy puts pictures of faces onto random bodies.
2: A bunch of guys beat the crap out of a guy every day for years.(with that kind of torture, he most likely would have killed himself before the years are over)

Logically...what sounds more evil to you?

Was he not also a child once? Aren't we all children? Do you lose compassion once a child becomes an adult simply because time passes by?

You are not talking about compassion.....no not at all, you talk of violence and hatred, the exact opposite.

I would say no big crime was commited in my mind, but what he did was wrong, there is a difference, what he did was indecent and worrying.

If he does infact actually become a danger, which he has not so far, then that's a different matter. But still violence would still not solve anything except of course to satisfy a few peoples "desires"

Let's take a step back and put our judgements in a more logical order.



[edit on 28-6-2009 by _Phoenix_]

He definitely has his place there. Anybody getting off on the idea of being sexually intimate with a child and try and expand those perversions should all follow suit. Honestly, if I were banging the gavel, it would have been more harsh.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by DeadFlagBlues]

I understand real children were hurt to make the images or videos. I'm not supporting that. As much as I am against even the idea of a justice system or any type of government control, I support the prosecution of the people who make these images and videos because they committed a real crime.

But people who view it? That's different. People are going to kidnap, rape, and murder whether there are people viewing it or not. It can be compared to the beheading videos that are easily found on the Internet. Militants are going to kidnap and behead people whether there are people viewing the videos or not.

Throwing people in prison for viewing child pornography only clogs up our prisons and diverts resources away from catching those who are actually creating the child pornography and actually kidnapping, raping, and murdering children.



I agree that it is sick to view. But I just don't see being "sick" as a crime. I support people's right to believe and think what they want as long as they don't act out or force those beliefs and thoughts on other people.



Nothing is stopping or will ever stop people from making pornographic images or videos featuring children. But one thing that is making it worse is making it illegal to view them.

I know that seems like faulty logic to many, but let me explain:

Every person has at least a small part of them that enjoys doing something illegal, taboo, or "sinful" every now and then. It could be something as minor as driving over the speed limit or drinking alcohol before you're 21, or it could be something as major as engaging in sexual activities with a minor when you are an adult.

Some people keep their illegal, taboo, or "sinful" behavior tame while others are more extreme. But no matter what the case, the more you tighten the rope around someone's neck, the more they are going to try to loosen it. Knocking someone down does not keep them down, it makes them want to stand up.

Some people are always going to find child pornography arousing or exciting. Making it illegal to view deprives them of the ability to satisfy that fetish. Being unable to satisfy a 'need' can drive many people to more extreme measures, in this case, kidnapping and/or sexually assaulting/raping children.

Think of it like a drug habit. If there is a supply, the drug addict gets high, feels good, and that is the end of it. But deprive the drug addict of their supply, and they must venture out to find their 'high'. If it's unavailable, they may resort to extreme measures such as robbery or even murder to attain it.

By making it illegal to view child pornography, the legal system is actually creating more pedophiles and more cases of child kidnappings, rapes, and murders. I'm not saying if child pornography were legal that no child would ever be kidnapped, raped, or murdered, but I can almost guarantee, just by knowing how the human mind works, that the numbers would drop. And isn't that supposedly the whole purpose in the first place?

He can flog his dolphin to thoughts of little girls all he wants, and at that stage it's only a thought crime. But he crossed the line into real crime when he tracked down (AKA "Stalking") some local girls online - local girls, as in people he has access too, and started making pictures out of them.

The part where he specifically looked for girls who live near him is important. It shows criminal intent. If his plan was to just make some pictures for himself to use, it wouldn't have mattered if they lived near him or not.

And no, the little girls weren't "asking for it" by posting their pictures online. They're 10 and 12. They don't think about these things, and they don't deserve to become victims because of the failings of their parents. It is not "their fault" because they "saturated the Internet with their pictures," or whatever some of you people have said about that. I don't understand how anyone can use the "she was asking for it" defense and then still get sleep at night, I really don't.

I'm quite shocked.

People who view real child pornography means they are helping to create a bigger business for it, which means more child abuse! Get the logic?

And of course most people who view it, watch it for entertainment, which means watching REAL kids getting raped or molested etc is fine by them!!!??


Which means if it's fine by them, then how the hell can you trust these guys around children!? They are OK with child RAPE! Or they would not watch it otherwise.

There is a HUUUGE difference between "fantasy" and "reality" People fantasize about things they would never do in real life all the time. Which is perfectly fine. Which is why you have so many art and animated fetishes and subjects imaginable.

But watching the REAL deal, is not fantasizing anymore. Watching real child pornography means they are part of the problem.

Now maybe I tend to agree that prison is not the solution, because in the end they did not directly harm anybody, and may simply need help.

And to make it legal you say? it would help? I think not.

I have never accidently come across child porn in all the years on the internet.

But if it became legal, then it would not become less of a problem, it would instead become a HUGE business. And of course instead of accidently coming across normal porn, we instead would be surrounded by child porn.

Not exactly the future of the internet I want to see lol. And it will never happen, that is until we have child robots...... and virtual reality of course lmao.

God help us all.




[edit on 28-6-2009 by _Phoenix_]

Absolutely. They need to be cleansed from the Earth.


Hmmm, that's a good point. Is it 'illegal' to view snuff movies? I don't try and search for those videos on the internet, dial-up sucks, but I have seen the honour killing where the cheering mob threw bricks at a girl's head until the puddle of blood showed that she was dead. Disturbing.

In that light, I can understand the rest of your post about the 'sinful' fettishes that people have.

The only issue that I have is that of supply and demand. If there was no demand for child-porn, would it still be made? It's like a nasty feedback loop, where the people who make it probably blame the people who watch it, while the people who watch it probably blame the people who make and supply it. Is one more guilty than the other? I'm not sure that I have a firm answer for this.

Anyway, as I stated before, there are people in powerful positions who turn a blind-eye and allow child-porn to be made. The first-hand abusers of children need to be snuffed out.

So what if he took the un-photoshopped pictures of the kids (fully clothed) and masturbated while looking at them? What if he is into beastiality as well and photoshopped the faces of the kids onto sheep and pleasured himself? Why is putting the faces on adult bodies any different than either of those scenarios? While it may be sick or morally offensive, it is not illegal. No crime committed in this case, IMO.

So I suppose searching for people you know on social networking sites like Myspace or Facebook is stalking too? With the logic you are using to justify the 'stalking' angle, that is indeed what you are claiming.



I'm quite sure he looked for them because he is attracted to them, not just because they live near him. In that case, since when is it illegal to look and find "attraction" in a person, no matter how old the person you are looking at is? Or are we just going to start writing laws for everything we find inappropriate and disgusting?



What are they victims of, exactly? Were they raped? Sexually abused? Kidnapped? Murdered? Tortured? Can you name one thing about this incident that will prevent them from living out their lives healthy and happy, raising a family, and becoming successful?

How would it become a huge business? Most likely the only people who would set up websites and charge people to view child pornography are the ones who created the child pornography in the first place. In that case, arrest the creator of the website on rape charges.

Or, if it's simply profiting off a sick fantasy that we are concerned about, and we are concerned that people will gather videos from the Internet and set up websites and charge people to view child pornography, make it illegal to sell child pornography.

There. The profitable demand has been eliminated. Problem solved.

But if it is displayed on any of the many free pornographic video websites, how are the people who created the videos profiting? What is their motivation to continue to kidnap and rape children? Their own sick desires? Those will never go away no matter what you make illegal and no matter who is watching.

Which brings me back to my original point: What does making child pornography illegal solve? It catches and imprisons a few of the people who hide in the shadows so that we can comfort ourselves in to believing we live in a clean and safe society. That's all it does.

That should be easy to enforce.

The makers and suppliers of the kiddy-porn should be hunted to the ends of the Earth. They are causing the first-hand damage to the children. It's a reflection of a sick society that so many people allow and permit children to be abused, without taking action. I couldn't imagine trying to buy or sell real images for fear of having the crap kicked out of me - and rightly so. Obviously people who make the kiddy-porn have powerful allies and are not so fearful of being caught.

Whatever the perverts do in the privacy of their home, with their lubricant, should be their choice.